Who needs the myth of Pashinyan’s “return to Russia’s bosom” and why?

One of the unexpected consequences of Nikol Pashinyan’s press conference on August 31 was the statements made in the Armenian political, expert, and media fields that “Nikol Pashinyan is returning to Russia’s bosom.”

The main reason for such conclusions was that, firstly, Nikol Pashinyan unequivocally and irrevocably did not announce Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO and other Russia-led integration associations, and, secondly, he made a statement that insults against Russia are unacceptable.

However, let’s take a closer look at what happened during the press conference and also put forward a version of why the thesis about Pashinyan’s “return” is spreading in Armenian society.
1. Nikol Pashinyan, on the one hand, ruled out any participation of Russia in the process of unblocking regional communications, excluded control over communications by the Russian Border Service, and, on the other hand, did not say a word about the statement by US State Department official O’Brien that communications through Armenia are needed to create an alternative route for the Central Asian countries access to “global markets” bypassing Russia and China. In other words, the transformation of Armenia into a “logistical pipeline” of the United States against Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is an acceptable scenario for the Armenian authorities, but compliance with the points of the November 9 declaration is unacceptable. A very interesting way to “return to Russia’s bosom.”.

2. Once again using the wording “outpost”, Pashinyan, in fact, accused Russia of migration from Armenia. In Pashinyan’s perception, Russia created the problem of Artsakh, which forced people to leave the territory of Armenia. According to Pashinyan’s logic, Russia has “planted a demographic time bomb under Armenia.” A very interesting way to “return to Russia’s bosom.”

3. It was also noteworthy that Nikol Pashinyan stated that “a country like Russia should not be spoken about in a dismissive tone” in response to a question from a journalist of the Pashinyan family newspaper, who noted in her question that the closer the moment of signing the peace treaty between Yerevan and Baku, the more “nervous movements” Moscow makes.

As for the absence of a statement on withdrawal from the CSTO or other Russia-led integration projects, there are also a number of components:

1. This makes it possible for individual actors of the political process in Armenia to say that “Pashinyan’s anti-Russian policy is a performance,” because, for example, Armenia continues to be part of Russian integration projects and, at the same time, shifts responsibility for the tragedies and problems of Armenia to Russia, systematically increasing the level of Russophobia in Armenia.

2. Speculate on the topic of the November 9th, 2020 declaration, stating that it was Russia that sabotaged its implementation.
In conclusion, it should be said that even “with the naked eye,” it is visible that those who say that “Nikol Pashinyan is Putin’s project” do not see the people of Armenia as the target audience of their statements. Their target audience is the US Embassy, the EU, and further down the list. These actors send signals to Washington and Brussels that “Pashinyan will deceive them,” and also ask for help in order to come to power themselves and “pursue a real course for Armenia’s integration into Western structures.”

Everything is more than obvious; however, since the vast majority of politicians in Armenia are grandmasters of one-move “chess combinations,” it seems to them that such a primitive move will not be possible to figure out…

Think about it…